One subject I’ve often discussed with friends and colleagues is about making difficult decisions, the reasoning behind those decisions, and the personal characteristics involved. What are the hallmarks of making good decisions in a challenging environment or situation?

There are many factors but for this post I want to refute – with the help of a wonderful example I found today – one factor that I think is either over emphasized or perhaps not really a factor at all. That factor is: fearlessness.

The definitionis “to be free from fear”. If you are faced with a difficult decision whether in a personal sphere, in business, or other arena is a lack of fear a good thing? It certainly might help you get over the hump, so to speak, and to act upon a decision you might have based on your judgment, your morality or ethics, particularly if the consequences for failure are dire enough (e.g., failed business, failed relationship, even life-or-death).
This has always troubled me though. I just seems that as humans we allhave fears and given they are seemingly universal then those fears are there for some useful purpose (and we should be paying attention to them!).

SpaceX, the company founded by Elon Musk sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station

“I wouldn’t say I have a lack of fear. In fact, I’d like my fear emotion to be less because it’s very distracting and fries my nervous system. I have this sort of feeling that something terrible could happen, like all of our flights could fail and Tesla could fail and SpaceX could fail, and that feeling of anxiety has not left me, even though this has been a great year. So I feel fear quite strongly; I just proceed nonetheless.“

I would say that fear is part of what stokes Elon’s drive and his attention to what is important in his business decisions. Fear is a means but the end – the decision to and actually act – is all about bravery. To move ahead despite the risk, despite the fears is a concious act, not an unconcious act (as fearlessness seems to be, at least to me).

So, may you recognize your fears. Confront them and use them to inform your decisions. Then summon your bravery to act with confidence on the decisions you have made, or as Elon says “just proceed nonetheless“.

News and hype about all the things we can – and are supposed to one day be able to – do with our mobile phones is itself an industry. As with most emerging technologies with great potential this is a natural phemonema. Recently I saw this infographic published and found it to be both well done and informative (if not in and of itself also adding to the hype it hopes to cut through). I thought I’d share it here also and invite commments.

Personally I think the approach by Starbucks has the most promise in terms of generating real evidence about what level of interest and usage might exist with a mobile payments solution. Since it is Starbucks-only it is simple and not as subject to complex technology and adoption issues (e.g., point of sale technology updated or replaced to enable mobile payment acceptance, training and customer service issues of high-turnover retail sales personnel) that plague the other types below.

And it is not an insignificant fact that the ONLY mobile payment type that has any traction today is the one used to buy relatively low importance, low priced things like ringtones and games. And outside the U.S., where supposedly adoption and usage has dwarfed the U.S., the by-far leading uses are parking and other incidental transportation purchases. This after a decade of hype that mobile payments were going to take over all manner of payments across the globe. Seems like great potential is still yet to be fully and clearly revealed. Stay tuned (and wary).

There is plenty of buzz (and spin!) regarding Apple’s foray into “contactless payments” and how it might validate and accelerate an emerging trend. When I read CNN.com’s headline “The end of credit cards is coming” my natural skepticism went on high alert. A post on Payments.com by Karen Webster, partially in response to CNN’s article and the issue overall, really hit the nail on the head.

It is fun and compelling to learn about a heretofore unmet – or better yet, unknown! – consumer need that has been splendidly filled by an innovative and heroic entrepreneur. Even better if it is Steve Jobs and Apple – the darling, so far, of the first decade or so of the 21st century. The foreseeing of the unforeseeable is often referred to as unlocking “latent” demand. Demand we didn’t even know existed or in ways we didn’t foresee. Sometimes it happens and I’ve written about it on this blog and elsewhere.

The Payments.com post, however, pointed out that both unlocking latent consumer demand for mobile, contactless payments may not have arrived just yet. Karen pointed out many industry factors, ranging from too many competing approaches to too few points of sale (POS) for acceptance (and daunting costs to enable the millions of POS devices functioning perfectly well today across the country without “contactless” capabilities).

The most glaring thing missing in my opinion is less technological and more fundamental: the lack of a compelling value proposition to the parties involved (made up of consumers, payments processors & networks, and merchants). Is there a compelling value proposition to be had? If not, is there really any latent demand? Are we all really, unknowingly so far, just waiting for a way to ditch our current payment methods (e.g,. cash, debit and credit cards, gift cards, checks) for one that uses our mobile phones instead? While none are perfect are the available methods broken and of low enough utility to be replaced?

“It should be noted that Apple’s business model and track record is to be closed (a profitable strategy, no doubt), and another key player the mobile networks are notoriously closed and seeking a way to corner any market for themselves and control / disallow other alternatives.

Along with the sheer steepness of the adoption Karen points out, I think these forces will make it hard to see any widespread adoption soon. Forecasts so far are mostly hype.

Personally I also don’t see the creation of a compelling value proposition which is always required to unlock the so-called latent demand for a mobile & contactless payment alternative (other than the “cool” factor, and for certain high traffic environments where checkout speed might have high marginal value). Current consumer demand for payment methods is well satisfied without NFC (Near Field Communications)-enabled phones.”

There are many stories that fascinate me about the tremendous potential of individuals being hidden behind personal peculiarities and foibles. Even more interesting are when two or more of these individuals are put together and become creators or catalysts of a great breakthrough.

This is fascinating to me for a couple of reasons. One is a common theme I like to write about which is the failure to see the potential of each individual when preconceptions or prejudice get in the way. The other is related: sometimes it takes individuals who are subject to the preconceptions or prejudice, thrown together for some reason (purposefully, through serendipity or other means), to mutually unlock the potential and power its fruition.

These individuals can often have singular talents which consume them in some way and lead them to ignore more mundane social or personal needs and habits. Think of Einstein, the brilliant theoretical physicist, who often could not recall how to get home after walking about and pondering a problem for hours, who didn’t bother combing his hair … or to wear socks.

Perhaps this ability (or inability?) to pay much attention to personal or social issues and norms – and further, not giving them attention in others — clarifies and focuses attention on some hidden potential buried in outside-the-box thinking, ideas, and visions.

One example is Johann Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Who are these guys? Tycho Brahe was the court mathematician and astronomer to King Frederic II and known throughout scholarly Europe at the time as the most knowledgeable person in the realm of the sky and the stars. He had meticulously and obsessively documented the movement of the planets, the moon, and the positions of all the stars that populated the nighttime skies. This repository of data and knowledge Brahe put together was in and of itself a marvelous feat of that or any time. He was a man of some means and had a world class observatory and institute of science and mathematics that he oversaw. It was home to many scholars and served to advance and spread knowledge about the heavens.

One young man who came to work with Brahe was Johannes Kepler. Where Brahe excelled in the detailed and meticulous world of scientific observation, Kepler was a theoretician who excelled in the world of conceptualizing and synthesizing many points of observation and fact.

Interestingly and by contrast, Brahe was an imposing figure – physically and in demeanor. He was seen as aristocratic and despotic, passionate and very eccentric. Kepler was thin, almost sickly, very near sighted, neurotic and disheveled. His father had been a solider for hire and his mother was an accused but acquitted witch who was said to enjoy psychedelic drugs. Perhaps the one common trait both had was a driven nature that conveyed to others arrogance and self-centeredness.

Kepler came to see that the observed facts Brahe had cataloged about the position and movement of the objects in the sky did not support the still widely accepted model of Aristotle and others that said the Earth was the center and the Sun and planets revolved around it. Nor did Brahe’s data support the newer model of Nicolas Copernicus (that Brahe believed in), developed by Copernicus a century earlier. Copernicus’ model rightly put the Sun in the center and Earth and the other planets orbiting around it. Copernicus’ model while correct generally, was flawed however, as it said the Earth and the planets traveled in perfectly circular orbits.

Kepler’s irritable and confrontational nature though made it difficult for him to get others to listen to his views and ideas. It was Brahe, for less than altruistic reasons (he feared his pupil might surpass him), who framed a challenge and focused Kepler on a part of the problem which led to a breakthrough model of the universe. One that is used to this day.

Brahe challenged Kepler to determine a model and equations that would accurately predict the path of Mars’ orbit. He knew that since Mars was close in proximity to Earth that a very precise model would be required to make accurate predictions. Mars would be the true test of Kepler’s ability to prove what he had been grumbling about. Kepler boasted it would take him 8 days to meet Brahe’s challenge. 8 years later, Kepler was still working out the solution.

Eventually, Kepler did come up with the model and equations to prove that the orbital path of Mars about the Sun was elliptical, not circular. Indeed the orbital motion of all the planets in our solar system can be described as elliptical. An interesting footnote is that Brahe died not long after issuing the Mars challenge to Kepler and did not live to find out whether his pupil met the challenge – and find out that indeed the student far surpassed the teacher in fame and stature.

Johannes Kepler is a key figure in the scientific revolution. His work provided one of the foundations for Issac Newton’s theory of Universal Gravitation. Imagine though if Brahe and others would have let their impressions of him lead them to disregard or sideline him. It can be argued that what he discovered might just have been found later and if so, today, 400 years later, we would hardly notice the difference or care if someone other than Kepler got credit.

It should be noted however, that in Kepler and Brahe’s time they were just emerging from a time well known as the Dark Ages. A time of scientific repression and repression of many other insidious sorts. A time in which someone of Kepler’s mind and approach would have been summarily dismissed – or worse – declared heretical.

The Dark Ages lasted more than 1000 years.

Odds are you nor I are currently working with or know the next Johannes Kepler. Yet we’ve all known or know people who have talents, sometimes singular and amazing, that fight to shine beyond personal faults and social awkwardness. Many of us have failed to recognize these talents. Either in hindsight or in the moment we chose the easy path of discarding the whole person, along with their potential, to avoid dealing with their perceived negative traits. As a leader, colleague, friend, and mentor I for one want to do a better job of dealing with others on their merits, even when they are hard to see, and resisting the easy path of avoidance or disregard.

Spring and summer have been busy work-wise, and lazy otherwise. The combination of hard work and the opportunity, through abundance of summery weather and a relaxing time away with family, to do nothing much has also given me time to read some interesting books.

Recently I’ve gotten hooked on science and history – in particular the rise in the early 20th century of quantum mechanics in physics. I have been amazed at how individually brilliant these scientists were and how incredible their vision and discoveries were. Imagining and then doing the math and experiments to prove what they imagined, in a time with no computers, little funding, and few sophisticated laboratory tools is the epitome of the human spirit and thirst for knowledge and understanding.

What I’ve also learned that was true and critical to the discoveries made was the collaboration and sharing that occurred. There were plenty of rivalries and some conflicts but given the stakes – and the potential for fame – there was more openness than secrecy. These remarkable men and women – Einstein, Curie, Fermi, Szilard, Meitner, Oppenheimer, Dirac and many others – were of varying nationalities and located across Europe, plus America and Asia. Again in a time of no computers or internet, they made a conscious investment – which was non-trivial given the communication challenges of the age – in publishing their discoveries, writing to each other regularly, and attending formal and informal gatherings where theories, approaches and findings were presented and debated.

They seemed to know that their ideas were worth far less if they hid them. They knew they’d be more valuable if they invited others to learn about them, debate or challenge them and add to them. Or perhaps that their individual ideas and theories were just small parts of a huge body of unknowns that one of them could not possibly explain alone. If they wanted to be successful – be part of explaining the universe – they had to cooperate with others.

Together they were discovering more deeply how the universe works, at the atomic and then sub atomic levels. Imagining and then proving that atoms existed and contained electrons, protons and neutrons. Imagining and then proving that even smaller things existed such as quarks, gluons and other interestingly-named particles. Imagining and then proving that atoms could be split – and fused. Some, such as Einstein, at times wished they’d never had their great thoughts or published them — since it led in 1945 to the deaths of more than 100,000 Japanese citizens in a matter of seconds with dropping of bombs. Bombs with innocent sounding names like Fat Boy and Little Man.

Yet there is no denying that there have been many positive aspects to what these people discovered and helped the world to understand. It has and continues to change the world as we know it.

And their approach to innovation and knowledge sharing can teach us a great deal about what can happen when the potential of new ideas is fueled by a spirit of cooperation and sharing for the common good.

If you are interested at all in what I’ve been reading, here’s a few selected titles:

At another URL I maintain a blog that is quite political, or at least contains a fair amount of writing and comments on the state of things political and socio-economic. I refrain from that on my blog here because it is my intent to stay above — or outside — that often contentious set of issues (important as they may be).

I have been looking for, however, a way to write in this blog about the state of affairs in the U.S. from a balanced but positive perspective. I continue to believe that the potential of America is still yet to be fully revealed. I am certain I have this hope in large part because I desire it to be true for my own children’s sake.

It is hard, in my opinion, not to argue that I and my fellow Americans are quite fortunate to be citizens of an exceptional nation. As our President said recently, many nations, perhaps all, view their nation as exceptional too. That is fine and such an attitude is helpful in fueling the growth and prosperity of the world’s peoples and can serve to lift them out of poverty and turn attention away from conflict and towards betterment of all types.

I will contend though that America has a special role to play in continuing to set an example — and to rely upon its own example set into motion over 200 years ago — for the world to follow.

It is, in other words, important to be optimistic in all facets of life. Even more so in the face of seemingly challenging and possibly overwhelming odds against continued success — or as some fear, survival. As I often quote to my friends, and attribute to my “grandfather”, when you have “fallen into a hole, there is no place to go but up”. This simple thought often gives me encouragement and I use it to encourage others (or add a little humor) when facing a difficult situation.

Gary Becker is a very intelligent man and someone to pay attention to. His writings, fortunately, will outlive him and now that he has reached advanced age his thinking seems clearer than ever. I have produced the link to the text below here. What he says about our future has much caution and some prescriptions for change, but overall it is the optimism for the future, the potential we can still reveal as a nation, and the chance to continue to be a global role model that appeals to me. I hope to you also.

—–

Stanford, Calif.

“No, no. Not at all.”

So says Gary Becker when asked if the financial collapse, the worst recession in a quarter of a century, and the rise of an administration intent on expanding the federal government have prompted him to reconsider his commitment to free markets.

Mr. Becker is a founder, along with his friend and teacher the late Milton Friedman, of the Chicago school of economics. More than four decades after winning the John Bates Clark Medal and almost two after winning the Nobel Prize, the 79-year-old occupies an unusual position for a man who has spent his entire professional life in the intensely competitive field of economics: He has nothing left to prove. Which makes it all the more impressive that he works as hard as an associate professor trying to earn tenure. He publishes regularly, carries a full-time teaching load at the University of Chicago (he’s in his 32nd year), and engages in a running argument with his friend Judge Richard Posner on the “Becker-Posner Blog,” one of the best-read Web sites on economics and the law.

When his teaching schedule permits, Mr. Becker visits the Hoover Institution, the think tank at Stanford where he has been a fellow since 1988. The day he and I meet in his Hoover office, Mr. Becker has already attended a meeting with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and spent several hours touring Apple headquarters down the road in Cupertino with his wife, Guity Nashat, a historian of the Middle East, and their grandson. “I guess you’d call our grandson a computer whiz,” he explains proudly. “He’s just 14, but he has already sold a couple of apps.”

I begin with the obvious question. “The health-care legislation? It’s a bad bill,” Mr. Becker replies. “Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn’t address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It’s going to increase health costs—not contain them.”

Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

“Here in the United States,” Mr. Becker says, “we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that.”

Despite the damage this new legislation appears certain to cause, Mr. Becker believes we’re probably stuck with it. “Repealing this bill will be very, very difficult,” he says. “Once you’ve got a piece of legislation in place, interest groups grow up around it. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Originally, the American Medical Association opposed Medicare and Medicaid. Then the AMA came to see them as a source of demand for physicians’ services. Today the AMA supports Medicare and Medicaid as staunchly as anyone. Something like that will happen with this new legislation.”

Bad legislation, maintained by self-seeking interest groups. Back in 1982, I remind Mr. Becker, the economist Mancur Olson published a book, “The Rise and Decline of Nations,” predicting just that trend. Over time, Olson argued, interest groups would form to press for policies that would almost invariably prove protectionist, redistributive or antitechnological. Policies, in a word, that would inhibit economic growth. Yet since the benefits of such policies would accrue directly to interest groups while the costs would be spread across the entire population, very little opposition to such self-seeking would ever develop. Interest groups—and bad policies—would proliferate, and the nation would stagnate.

Olson may have sketched his portrait during the 1980s, but doesn’t it display a remarkable likeness to the United States today? Mr. Becker thinks for a moment, swiveling toward the window. Then he swivels back. “Not necessarily,” he replies.

“The idea that interest groups can derive specific, concentrated benefits from the political system—yes, that’s a very important insight,” he says. “But you can have competing interest groups. Look at the automobile industry. The domestic manufacturers in Detroit want protectionist policies. But the auto importers want free trade. So they fight it out. Now sometimes in these fights the dark forces prevail, and sometimes the forces of light prevail. But if you have competing interest groups you don’t end up with a systematic bias toward bad policy.”

Mr. Becker places his hands behind his head. Once again, he reflects, then smiles wryly. “Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t any systematic bias toward bad policy,” he says. “There’s one bias that we’re up against all the time: Markets are hard to appreciate.”

Capitalism has produced the highest standard of living in history, and yet markets are hard to appreciate? Mr. Becker explains: “People tend to impute good motives to government. And if you assume that government officials are well meaning, then you also tend to assume that government officials always act on behalf of the greater good. People understand that entrepreneurs and investors by contrast just try to make money, not act on behalf of the greater good. And they have trouble seeing how this pursuit of profits can lift the general standard of living. The idea is too counterintuitive. So we’re always up against a kind of in-built suspicion of markets. There’s always a temptation to believe that markets succeed by looting the unfortunate.”

As he speaks, Mr. Becker appears utterly at ease. He wears loose-fitting clothes and slouches comfortably in his chair. His hair, wispy and white, sets off his most striking feature—penetrating eyes so dark they seem nearly black. Yet those dark eyes display not foreboding, but contentment. He does not have the air of a man contemplating national decline.

I read aloud from an article by historian Victor Davis Hanson that had appeared in the morning newspaper. “[W]e are in revolutionary times,” Mr. Hanson argues, “in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy to student loans.” Next I read from a column by economist Thomas Sowell. “With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical system,” Mr. Sowell asserts, “a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America.”

“They’re very eloquent,” Mr. Becker replies, his equanimity undisturbed. “And maybe they’re right. But I’m not that pessimistic.” The temptation to view markets with suspicion, he explains, is just that: a temptation. Although voters might succumb to the temptation temporarily, over time they know better.

“One of the points Secretary Paulson made earlier today was how outraged—how unexpectedly outraged—the American people became when the government bailed out the banks. This belief in individual responsibility—the belief that people ought to be free to make their own decisions, but should then bear the consequences of those decisions—this remains very powerful. The American people don’t want an expansion of government. They want more of what Reagan provided. They want limited government and economic growth. I expect them to say so in the elections this November.”

Even if ordinary Americans still want limited government, I ask, what about those who dominate the press and universities? What about the molders of received opinion who claim that the financial crisis marked the demise of capitalism, rendering the Chicago school irrelevant?

“During the financial crisis,” he replies, “the government and markets—or rather, some aspects of markets—both failed.”

The Federal Reserve, Mr. Becker explains, kept interest rates too low for too long. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made the mistake of participating in the market for subprime instruments. And as the crisis developed, regulators failed to respond. “The Fed and the Treasury didn’t see the crisis coming until very late. The SEC didn’t see it at all,” he says.

“The markets made mistakes, too. And some of us who study the markets made mistakes. Some of my colleagues at Chicago probably overestimated the ability of the Fed to smooth disruptions. I didn’t write much about the Fed, but if I had I would probably have overestimated the Fed myself. As the banks developed new instruments, economists paid too little attention to the systemic risks—the risks the instruments posed for the whole financial system—as opposed to the risks they posed for individual institutions.

“I learned from Milton Friedman that from time to time there are going to be financial problems, so I wasn’t surprised that we had a financial crisis. But I was surprised that the financial crisis spilled over into the real economy. I hadn’t expected the crisis to become that bad. That was my mistake.”

Once again, Mr. Becker reflects. “So, yes, we economists made mistakes. But has the experience of the past few years invalidated the finding that markets remain the most efficient means for producing economic growth? Not in any way.

“Look at growth in developed countries since the Second World War,” he continues. “Even after you take into account the various recessions, including this one, you still end up with a good record. So even if a recession as bad as this one were the price of free markets—and I don’t believe that’s the correct way of looking at it, because government actions contributed so greatly to the current problem—but even if a bad recession were the price, you’d still decide it was worth paying.

“Or look at developing countries,” he says. “China, India, Brazil. A billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990 because their countries moved toward more market-based economies—a billion people. Nobody’s arguing for taking that back.”

My last question involves a little story. Not long before Milton Friedman’s death in 2006, I tell Mr. Becker, I had a conversation with Friedman. He had just reviewed the growth of spending that was then taking place under the Bush administration, and he was not happy. After a pause during the Reagan years, Friedman had explained, government spending had once again begun to rise. “The challenge for my generation,” Friedman had told me, “was to provide an intellectual defense of liberty.” Then Friedman had looked at me. “The challenge for your generation is to keep it.”

What was the prospect, I asked Mr. Becker, that this generation would indeed keep its liberty? “It could go either way,” he replies. “Milton was right about that.”

Mr. Becker recites some figures. For years, federal spending remained level at about 20% of GDP. Now federal spending has risen to 25% of GDP. On current projections, federal spending would soon rise to 28%. “That concerns me,” Mr. Becker says. “It concerns me a great deal.

“But when Milton was starting out,” he continues, “people really believed a state-run economy was the most efficient way of promoting growth. Today nobody believes that, except maybe in North Korea. You go to China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, even Western Europe. Most of the economists under 50 have a free-market orientation. Now, there are differences of emphasis and opinion among them. But they’re oriented toward the markets. That’s a very, very important intellectual victory. Will this victory have an effect on policy? Yes. It already has. And in years to come, I believe it will have an even greater impact.”

The sky outside his window has begun to darken. Mr. Becker stands, places some papers into his briefcase, then puts on a tweed jacket and cap. “When I think of my children and grandchildren,” he says, “yes, they’ll have to fight. Liberty can’t be had on the cheap. But it’s not a hopeless fight. It’s not a hopeless fight by any means. I remain basically an optimist.”

A little while back I read an article about Brett Favre, quarterback now for the Vikings but for most of his career the star of the Green Bay Packers. It was a very personal profile. More recently there was an article about Ringo Starr, who will soon turn 70. Ringo of course was the drummer for the Beatles. (Trivia: he was not the original drummer! Do you know who was?). After reading both I had similar reactions and thought I’d write about it.

Both clearly had much potential – potential that was fully and famously revealed by each in their own unique ways.

They were similar in some respects: both grew up in families and surroundings of modest means. Ringo perhaps more so but Brett didn’t have any silver spoons either.

They had different influences though. Ringo said Liverpool was rough and at times violent and unsafe. But he has clear memory of loving and kind people, in his family and from his neighborhood growing up.

Brett had an excessively tough father who was his high school football coach and life long (tor)mentor. His father was critical and unforgiving well into Brett’s adult life and professional career. In one famous incident, he criticized his son’s play and abilities despite Brett having the best year of his career and having just won the league Most Valuable Player award for the 3rd time.

What does this say about revealing one’s potential? It doesn’t matter if you are loved or ridiculed and it helps to start out by growing up poor and then striving hard enough to be successful beyond expectations?

I don’t think so. Something else that they had in common seemed more like the key.

Brett did not have good football passing mechanics. In fact they were unusual and not very pretty. What he possessed was an unusually powerful arm and knack for improvisation, and he could throw the ball farther and more accurately than any rival. He said he simply loved throwing the football. Always had and still does. It is what drives him to compete despite recently turning 40 – and compete at a level that nearly took him to yet another Super Bowl in 2010. He listened to – and focused intently on – this love he had.

Ringo was not a classicly great drummer. Many have said he was the “weakest” Beatle, musical talent-wise. Of course he’s competing with the greatest song writing duo in modern music history (Lennon and McCartney) and a multi-talented artist (George Harrison) so it might be fair to cut him some slack. It’s like saying Dimaggio was only the 4th greatest baseball player – behind Ruth, Williams and Aaron.

But Ringo said he loves drumming. Always had and still does. He has for many years since the Beatles broke up put together a series of touring bands he’s called the All Starr Band (usually packed with contemporary greats from the 60’s and 70’s such as Joe Walsh, Dave Stewart, Gary Wright and Edgar Winter, and from more recent times such as Ben Harper, Joss Stone, Don Was and Benmont Tench). The reason why all these great musicians want to play in his All Starr bands is because Ringo is so fun to play music with. He brings out the best in them because his drumming is there to complement and enhance – not overshadow – his band mates’ playing and singing. He’s considered a pioneer of this style. I’m sure John, Paul and George felt this when they were writing, creating and playing all those great Beatles tunes together. His love of drumming and the role it plays in making great music with great musicians drives him, despite the fact that he is soon going to turn 70 years old.

What’s the lesson? One is a common one: do what you love and follow your passions. Potential and success are often revealed if you do. An important corollary seems to be: don’t worry if how you do what you love is “flawed” or “different” somehow. If Brett and Ringo had let that stand in the way, think of all the potential greatness we would have missed.